RASHBIHARI SINGH vs State of Bihar — 1372/2026
Case under Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section 482. Disposed: Contested--REJECT on 21st April 2026.
Anticipatory Bail
CNR: BREC010046482026
Filing Number
4316/2026
Filing Date
11-Mar-2026
Registration No
1372/2026
Registration Date
11-Mar-2026
Court
DJ Div. Motihari
Judge
1-Principal District and sessions Judge
Decision Date
21-Apr-2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--REJECT
Last updated 23-May-2026
FIR Details
FIR Number
11
Police Station
BANJARIA
Year
2026
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.RASHBIHARI SINGH
Adv. SHAILENDRA KUMAR II
Respondent(s)
-
1.State of Bihar
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
21-Apr-2026
Order By Court
-
21-Apr-2026
Order By Court
The Sessions Judge rejected the anticipatory bail petition of Rashbihari Singh (76 years old) who was accused of selling ancestral land through fake documents under BNS sections 318(4), 338, 336(3), 340(2), 119(1), and 3(5). The court found the prosecution case credible based on corroborating witness statements and the petitioner's prior criminal record, and concluded that the serious nature of land-grabbing offences warranted denial of pre-arrest bail. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
21-Apr-2026
Disposed
Principal District and sessions Judge
-
18-Apr-2026
Hearing
Principal District and sessions Judge
-
13-Apr-2026
Hearing
Principal District and sessions Judge
-
06-Apr-2026
Hearing
Principal District and sessions Judge
-
28-Mar-2026
Hearing
Principal District and sessions Judge
-
17-Mar-2026
Hearing
Principal District and sessions Judge
-
12-Mar-2026
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
11-Mar-2026
Case filed
Registration No. 1372/2026
The Sessions Judge rejected the anticipatory bail petition of Rashbihari Singh (76 years old) who was accused of selling ancestral land through fake documents under BNS sections 318(4), 338, 336(3), 340(2), 119(1), and 3(5). The court found the prosecution case credible based on corroborating witness statements and the petitioner's prior criminal record, and concluded that the serious nature of land-grabbing offences warranted denial of pre-arrest bail. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts